IRC log of swd on 2007-10-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
14:52:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:21 [Tom]
rrsagent, bookmark
14:52:21 [RRSAgent]
14:52:26 [Tom]
zakim, this will be swd
14:52:26 [Zakim]
ok, Tom, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
14:52:30 [Tom]
Meeting: SWD WG
14:52:32 [Tom]
Chair: Tom
14:52:45 [Zakim]
14:52:57 [Tom]
14:53:14 [Tom]
zakim, LC is Clay
14:53:14 [Zakim]
+Clay; got it
14:54:57 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
14:55:00 [Tom]
14:55:10 [Tom]
Regrets: Ralph
14:55:41 [Tom]
rrsagent, please make record public
14:55:53 [edsu]
edsu has joined #swd
14:56:45 [Tom]
Scribe: Clay
14:56:51 [Tom]
scribenick: clay
14:57:12 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
14:57:49 [Zakim]
14:58:06 [Tom]
zakim, LC is Edsu
14:58:06 [Zakim]
+Edsu; got it
14:59:18 [vit]
vit has joined #swd
14:59:32 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
14:59:49 [Zakim]
+ +20420aaaa
15:00:08 [Antoine]
zakim, aaaa is Antoine
15:00:08 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
15:00:33 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
15:01:00 [Zakim]
15:01:33 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #swd
15:01:44 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
15:02:22 [Zakim]
+ +012242aabb
15:02:46 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
15:02:52 [Zakim]
15:04:38 [Clay]
TOPIC: Actions from pre-Amsterdam telecon (Oct 2)
15:04:46 [Zakim]
15:04:55 [Clay]
ACTION: Ben to send formal request to send mail proposing Draft of RDFa Syntax and Publish new version of RDFa Primer, both on REC track) [recorded in]
15:05:00 [Clay]
15:05:07 [seanb]
zakim, ??P53 is seanb
15:05:12 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
15:05:13 [Clay]
ACTION: Alistair to state the difference between the two flavours of the SimpleExtension proposal for issue 26 [recorded in]
15:05:16 [Clay]
15:05:32 [Clay]
ACTION: all to register (indicate also that you're not planning to attend and/or want to attend via telecon) [recorded in
15:05:37 [Clay]
15:05:51 [Clay]
ACTION: Antoine to make wiki page or list posting summarizing issues for "Concept Semantics" [recorded in]
15:05:53 [Clay]
15:06:04 [Clay]
ACTION: Diego, Ed and Justin to review RDFa syntax document prior to f2f [recorded in
15:06:06 [Clay]
15:06:18 [Clay]
ACTION: Elisa to ask for feedback on VM draft [recorded in]
15:06:19 [Clay]
15:06:30 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus to email a proposal to the list about Issue-36 ConceptSchemeContainment [recorded in]
15:06:32 [Clay]
15:07:03 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus to move ISSUE-26 forward [recorded in]
15:07:05 [Clay]
15:07:30 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for ISSUE-25 [recorded in]
15:07:33 [Clay]
15:07:41 [Clay]
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in]
15:07:43 [Clay]
15:08:08 [Clay]
TOPIC: Admin
15:08:37 [Clay]
TomB: propose to accept minutes
15:08:49 [Zakim]
15:08:57 [Clay]
...including minutes from face-to-face
15:08:58 [Zakim]
15:09:48 [Clay]
Antoine: notes some resolutions might not have been properly recorded
15:09:59 [JonP]
zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
15:09:59 [Zakim]
+JonP; got it
15:10:31 [Clay]
Guus: postpone the decision accepting the minutes
15:10:37 [Clay]
15:11:34 [Clay]
TomB: next telecon on 10/30 will be altered by one hour for London, Amsterdam due to time changes
15:12:25 [Clay]
... possibly cancel 11/06 meeting?
15:12:43 [Clay]
Proposal to telecon meet for 11/06
15:13:37 [Clay]
RESOLVED: that 11/06 meeeting will take place and 11/13 meeting will not. 1600 UTC time for 11/06.
15:14:42 [Clay]
TOPIC: SWD review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
15:15:06 [Clay]
TomB: Michael has drafted some sentences for the authors
15:15:48 [aliman]
which URI is TOm reading?
15:15:56 [edsu]
15:16:51 [Clay]
TomB: have a brief discussion or agree that these sentence capture the points we want to make. The SWEO is looking forward to the feedback. Propose to accept comments as stated and forward to SWEO.
15:17:08 [Clay]
Ed: wants to go on record as saying that the wording is a bit strong.
15:17:31 [Clay]
TomB: agreed. Authors can take the comments as input.
15:18:46 [Clay]
Ed: feels that the recommendations of the Cool URI document and RDFa are not mutually exclusive
15:19:06 [aliman]
+1 on what Ed said, RDFa and cool URIs needs more thought
15:20:06 [Clay]
TomB: leave it to the SWEO folks to wordsmith. Wording could be improved.
15:20:14 [Clay]
Ed: agrees
15:20:15 [JonP]
+1 wrt the wording is perhaps too exclusionary
15:20:39 [Clay]
RESOLVED: Michael to forward comments to SWEO noting that the wording could be wordsmithed
15:20:55 [Clay]
15:21:18 [Clay]
TomB: I transcribed the resolutions from Amsterdam, mostly from labelling properties discussion
15:22:22 [Clay]
... resolution on concept semantics might not have been caputred fully?
15:23:40 [Clay]
Antoine: these were not formalized. there were 3. 1. SKOS concepts are of type RDFS class. 2. SKOS Concept is of owl:Class. 3. SKOS Concept instance of classes and disjoint with owl:Class.
15:24:01 [Clay]
s/RDFS class/rdfs:Class/
15:24:07 [aliman]
s/disjoint/no statement about disjoint/
15:24:29 [aliman]
q+ to comment about skos reference
15:25:03 [Clay]
TomB: propose action on Antoine to formulate 3 resolutions for Amsterdam topic Concept Semantics posted to the list.
15:25:12 [Clay]
... as a basis for amending meeting record.
15:25:50 [Clay]
ACTION: Antoine to formulate 3 resolutions for Amsterdam topic Concept Semantics posted to the list. as a basis for amending meeting record.
15:26:06 [JonP]
q+ to ask about deprecation of inScheme
15:26:34 [Clay]
Sean: semantic relation properties: fine.
15:28:05 [Clay]
ACTION: Tom to amend proposals to for accepting minimal relation labels
15:28:15 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #swd
15:30:11 [aliman]
q+ to comment on label relations resolution
15:30:52 [Clay]
TomB: recalls that we decided to accept the resolution and to have an action of proposing label resource.
15:30:58 [Tom]
ack aliman
15:30:58 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to comment about skos reference and to comment on label relations resolution
15:31:36 [aliman]
15:31:42 [Clay]
Alistair: tried to put all resolutions in a new WIki draft of a skos reference document
15:31:53 [Simone]
Simone has joined #swd
15:31:59 [Clay]
... if this isn't what people remember, ping Alistair
15:32:14 [Zakim]
15:33:19 [aliman]
15:33:57 [Clay]
Alistair: skos reference label relations section. skos:labelRelated is in there tentatively, etc.
15:34:24 [Antoine]
q+ to add a resolution on concept scheme topic
15:35:49 [aliman]
I understood we could always go back to an issue and change our mind in the light of further discussion ... no double jeopardy :)
15:36:54 [Tom]
ack JonP
15:36:54 [Zakim]
JonP, you wanted to ask about deprecation of inScheme
15:36:57 [Clay]
Guus: we took a resolution on the general approach.
15:37:04 [Clay]
... resolutions can be reopened
15:37:14 [Tom]
ack Antoine
15:37:14 [Zakim]
Antoine, you wanted to add a resolution on concept scheme topic
15:38:01 [Clay]
Antoine: in end of minutes there are lines about concept scheme. Decisions were made that were not compiled in the list as resolved.
15:38:46 [Clay]
ACTION: Antoine to list decisions made about concept scheme
15:38:54 [Tom]
ack JonP
15:39:44 [Clay]
Jon: I don't believe that we voted on deprecating inScheme in favor of isDefinedBy. If this is resolved, it needs further discussion.
15:39:59 [Clay]
s/in favor of/inFavorOf/
15:40:14 [Clay]
s/inFavorOf/in favor of/
15:40:44 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus to post an interpretation of the Amsterdam discussion of isDefinedBy
15:41:57 [aliman]
Btw I forgot about skos:inScheme and skos:hasTopConcept when I did the first bake of SKOS reference, have just added some TODOs to
15:42:18 [edsu]
15:42:23 [Clay]
Tom: 1. what did we decide in Amsterdam, and Guus needs the interepretation of the discussion
15:43:02 [Clay]
Alistair: added some TODOs
15:43:30 [aliman]
q+ to ask Jon P to raise a new issue for skos:inScheme, with feedback
15:43:34 [Clay]
15:43:36 [Clay]
15:43:57 [Clay]
15:44:12 [aliman]
15:45:14 [edsu]
Antoines review:
15:45:39 [Clay]
ACTION: antoine to review RDFa Primer before next telecon (within two weeks). [recorded in]
15:45:44 [Clay]
15:47:14 [aliman]
JonP -- I've heard some similar feedback on losing skos:inScheme, it'd be great if you could capture in a new issue. If we do keep skos:inScheme, I think it needs to be clarified, because it was in a way weaker than rdfs:isDefinedBy -- a SKOS concept could be skos:inScheme any number of schemes; but rdfs:isDefinedBy suggests only one scheme. So do we want to express a notion of one distinguished s
15:47:16 [aliman]
cheme for any concept, in which it is defined? Do we also want to allow concepts to be "in" other schemes too? How does this interact with using owl:imports?
15:47:21 [Clay]
RESOLVED: to approve publications of RDFa Primer as a working draft
15:47:49 [Clay]
ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom [regarding maintenance of wiki document] [recorded in]
15:47:51 [Clay]
15:47:58 [Clay]
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule in wiki [] [recorded in]
15:48:01 [Clay]
15:48:08 [Clay]
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in]
15:48:10 [edsu]
JonP: i would be interested in the feedback you got as well
15:48:10 [Clay]
15:48:17 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus/Tom to propose joint decisions for reviews for major [RDFa] steps/transition requests. Informal agreement about working drafts. [recorded in]
15:48:24 [Clay]
15:48:29 [Clay]
TOPIC: Recipes
15:50:12 [Clay]
ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in]
15:50:15 [Clay]
15:50:24 [Clay]
ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as potential mechanisms, but it's out of scope here. [recorded in]
15:50:26 [Clay]
15:50:33 [Clay]
ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed [with regard to Issue-23] [recorded in]
15:50:36 [Clay]
15:50:44 [Clay]
ACTION: Ralph to come up with a URI for wiki page [for Recipes implementations] [recorded in]
15:50:46 [Clay]
15:50:56 [Clay]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes] [recorded in]
15:50:58 [Clay]
15:51:07 [Clay]
ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version of Recipes for review in December [recorded in]
15:51:08 [Clay]
15:51:22 [Clay]
ACTION: Guus/Tom to solicit reviewers for the Recipes document. [recorded in]
15:51:25 [Clay]
15:51:48 [JonP]
aliman, edsu: I'll put together an email to the list wrt inScheme deprecation feedback
15:51:51 [Clay]
ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in]
15:51:56 [Clay]
15:52:08 [Clay]
Alistair's half of that task is done
15:52:14 [Clay]
TOPIC: Vocabulary management
15:52:26 [Clay]
ACTION: Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a standard structure for sections [recorded in]
15:52:34 [Clay]
15:55:59 [Guus]
15:56:01 [edsu]
aliman's reference document:
15:56:09 [Clay]
Alistair: talks in greater detail about the SKOS Reference, was SKOS Semantics, referenced earlier in the meeting. SKOS Semantics is deprecated.
15:57:01 [edsu]
JonP: thanks, that would be very useful for me here at LC
15:57:32 [Clay]
Guus: asking about Alistair's recording semantics in documents.
15:58:01 [Clay]
Alistair: didn't add them in verbatim from meeting, but made editorial adjustments
16:00:08 [Zakim]
16:00:09 [Zakim]
16:00:10 [Zakim]
16:00:11 [Zakim]
16:00:12 [Zakim]
16:00:13 [Clay]
meeting adjourned
16:00:13 [Zakim]
16:00:15 [Zakim]
16:00:16 [Zakim]
16:00:18 [Zakim]
16:00:28 [edsu]
Antoine: you still there?
16:00:38 [Tom]
zakim, who attended
16:00:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who attended', Tom
16:00:46 [Clay]
zakim, list attendees
16:00:46 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Clay, Edsu, +20420aaaa, Antoine, vit, TomB, +012242aabb, Quentin, Aliman, seanb, Guus_Schreiber, JonP
16:01:47 [Tom]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:01:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Tom
16:02:13 [edsu]
Antoine: i'm not on call either -- it's ok, i was wondering about a couple things 1) if you had played with lcsh/rameau/skos at all 2) if we need an action re: the primer
16:02:41 [Zakim]
16:02:55 [Zakim]
16:02:56 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:02:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were Clay, Edsu, +20420aaaa, Antoine, vit, TomB, +012242aabb, Quentin, Aliman, seanb, Guus_Schreiber, JonP
16:03:55 [edsu]
Antoine: absolutely :)
16:04:20 [edsu]
Antoine: things are heating up here with respect to lcsh/skos -- so i'm likely to be doing some conversions in the next week or so
16:04:50 [edsu]
Antoine: i'll email you with any developments
16:05:22 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
16:05:56 [edsu]
edsu has left #swd
16:06:53 [Antoine]
Antoine has left #swd